NationStates Jolt Archive


Army Chief of Staff answers Time reporters' questions, includes "Do we need a draft?"

Eutrusca
25-04-2005, 15:51
NOTE: Quite a number of threads on here keep asking "Will we have a draft," among other things. Here, the US Army's Chief of Staff answers that question, and more. Read a biography (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/schoomaker_bio.html) of Gen. Schoomaker. General Schoomaker’s awards and decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Army Distinguished Service Medals, four Defense Superior Service Medals, three Legions of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, two Defense Meritorious Service Medals, three Meritorious Service Medals, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, Master Parachutist Badge and HALO Wings, the Special Forces Tab, and the Ranger Tab.


Ten Questions With Peter Schoomaker
TIME talks to the Army Chief of Staff (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1053555%2C00.html)

By SALLY B. DONNELLY AND DOUGLAS WALLER

Friday, Apr. 22, 2005

Two years ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talked Gen. Peter Schoomaker, into coming out of retirement and leading the Army as its Chief of Staff. Since then, Schoomaker, a former Delta Force commando who's fought all over the world, has been busy creating what both men want: a completely reorganized ground force with smaller more versatile fighting units. Schoomaker, 59, sat down with TIME's Sally Donnelly and Douglas Waller to explain the challenges of changing the Army — and working for a very demanding boss.


TIME: How are you transforming the Army?

Schoomaker: We are developing a modular Army force that gives us much more rapidly deployable, much more capable organizations that cover a broader spectrum of the conflict. What you will have is a team of pentathletes. I want a whole basketball team of Michael Jordans who can play any position. What we must do is be able to have this pentathlete team better organized, better led, better trained, better equipped, and more strategically agile.

TIME: Where are we in the global war on terror?

SCHOOMAKER: I don't think I can answer that. What I can tell you is that we're making progress. One of biggest steps we've made is coming to realize that this is a real war, that this is a really serious national security issue. It is bigger than individual acts [of terrorism].

TIME: Why should Americans think the situation in Iraq is getting better and not worse?

SCHOOMAKER: Gen. John Abizaid [head of the U.S. Central Command] and Gen. George Casey [the top commander in Iraq] believe that they're making progress. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are there engaged in it every day believe that they are making progress. That is different than saying that things are over. You're going to ask me, have we turned a corner? I don't know. You have to ask them, but I do believe we're moving in a positive direction.

TIME: Recruiting has been down the last few months. Do you worry about it, and also about keeping people in the Army?

SCHOOMAKER: Our retention is going very well. The 3rd Infantry Division is at more than 250% of [its retention] goal. And they're in Iraq. We're retaining 64,000 soldiers this year as opposed to 51,000 in previous years. The challenge is recruiting. We have raised our recruiting goal to 80,000. It was down around 71,000 previously. We aren't meeting our recruiting goals right now because our goals are much higher. I feel optimistic we will meet our enhanced goal by the end of the year in the regular Army. I am more concerned about the Guard and the Reserve.

I went back and looked at World War II. We had a population of about 140 million people in this country and we put almost 9% of that population into uniform. Today we have twice the population and we're trying to put about four-tenths of one percent of it into uniform. And we're facing a national security situation that is at least as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than we faced in World War II. This nation is who I'm concerned about. It's not an Army problem to recruit. It's a national challenge.

TIME: How do you get the nation behind recruiting?

SCHOOMAKER: I think we have to tell our story. We have to let people know that when the young men and women come into the armed forces, they will stay with us. They find out that they're in an organization that is bigger than they are, doing important things for the nation, and that they have responsibilities and opportunities they've never had before.

TIME: Should we have a draft?

SCHOOMAKER: No. This nation can have a professional armed force. If we had a draft our Army would have to be much, much bigger and it would never be as good as it is now. Not because we don't have good people, but because it takes too long to train people as pentathletes. And with a two-year draft [commitment] you're never getting beyond a junior varsity level.

TIME: Rumsfeld has been tough on his generals, firing some, browbeating others to bend them to his will. How have you been able to stay on his good side?

SCHOOMAKER: I'm not sure I am on his good side. I mean, I don't see it as a good side or bad side. This is big-guy business. Look at who've I worked for my whole life. Guys like Charlie Beckwith [the hard-charging colonel who organized Delta Force]. I don't see this as a get-along deal. What we're doing is working towards common interests. These are big people, they're tough people. This is a tough business. And I don't think you can have too thin a skin.

TIME: What's the secret to gaining Rumsfeld's confidence?

SCHOOMAKER: I don't know. I think you have to produce. You have to stand up for what you think is right. You have to enter the dialogue. I did not know Secretary Rumsfeld well before he called me back. It was a big surprise. I had like four days notice. I was in my truck and his office called me. I entered it reluctantly. It wasn't something that I wanted to do. But the nation is at war. I asked him hard questions about whether he was willing to transform the Army the way I felt we had to do it and create the kind of force we needed. He said he was and so far he's held up his end of the bargain.

TIME: Some have grumbled that the generals and admirals are becoming too timid because Rumsfeld controls their promotions and he hasn't been shy about getting rid of folks he doesn't agree with. Is that true?

SCHOOMAKER: I can only speak for myself. I think we have an honest dialogue. We don't agree on everything. But he's the boss. I'm not the boss. The day that we can't agree on something that weighs deep inside of me—that's got to do with values, principles, right and wrong—I've got my truck with my keys out there. That's easy.

TIME: When have you had to stand up to him?

SCHOOMAKER: Daily. But listen, his instincts are great. He's a tough guy who understands this stuff. And I believe his heart's in the right place. He wants to do the right thing and he needs people to engage him and have the tussle that needs to be done. If you read history, America's way of going to war is ugly. We're always late. It takes us forever to get things going. I am amazed at how fast we've been able to do the things that we've done in this war compared to World War II. America ought to be proud of this Army.
Xanaz
25-04-2005, 15:55
That may be true at this moment. However the answer to that question can change in a heartbeat depending on circumstance. For example, if we decided to invade Iran or N. Korea. Or 100 other possible things happened. Those type of decisions can be made behind a close door in one meeting of the Pres & his cabinet.
Eutrusca
25-04-2005, 16:01
That may be true at this moment. However the answer to that question can change in a heartbeat depending on circumstance. For example, if we decided to invade Iran or N. Korea. Or 100 other possible things happened. Those type of decisions can be made behind a close door in one meeting of the Pres & his cabinet.
Congress must pass a draft law before there can be a decision on the part of the President to institute the draft.
Roach-Busters
25-04-2005, 16:05
If the draft gets revived, I'm moseying my ass over to another country (Thailand, here I come! :D).
Iztatepopotla
25-04-2005, 16:08
I need a draft. And it's only Monday morning *sigh*
Sith Dark Lords
25-04-2005, 16:19
As a veteran, I can tell you that military personnel do NOT want a draft. They don't need the extra stress of someone who isn't there voluntarily. Not to mention the person who has been drafted more than likely doesn't want to be there either.
Trammwerk
25-04-2005, 16:21
This fellow seems like a realist; it was nice reading his responses.

That does raise an interesting question, though: would you go if your number was called? Hm.
Very Angry Rabbits
25-04-2005, 16:45
Ten Questions With Peter Schoomaker
TIME talks to the Army Chief of Staff

Two years ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talked Gen. Peter Schoomaker, into coming out of retirement and leading the Army as its Chief of Staff. Since then, Schoomaker, a former Delta Force commando who's fought all over the world, has been busy creating what both men want: a completely reorganized ground force with smaller more versatile fighting units. Schoomaker, 59, sat down with TIME's Sally Donnelly and Douglas Waller to explain the challenges of changing the Army — and working for a very demanding boss.


TIME: How are you transforming the Army?

Schoomaker: We are developing a modular Army force that gives us much more rapidly deployable, much more capable organizations that cover a broader spectrum of the conflict. What you will have is a team of pentathletes. I want a whole basketball team of Michael Jordans who can play any position. What we must do is be able to have this pentathlete team better organized, better led, better trained, better equipped, and more strategically agile.And this is being done by lowering the standard for enlisting. Maximum age raised to one day short of 40 years old on enlistment, minimum education 9th grade. Does one create a team of Michael Jordans by lowering the standard?

TIME: Where are we in the global war on terror?

SCHOOMAKER: I don't think I can answer that. What I can tell you is that we're making progress. One of biggest steps we've made is coming to realize that this is a real war, that this is a really serious national security issue. It is bigger than individual acts [of terrorism]. The General is correct - he can't answer that. He can answer how the Army is doing with it's assigned missions - but the entire Global War on Terror (know affectionately in the DoD and probably the rest of the federal beaurocracy as "GWOT") requires the Administration to answer, as the answer must include how the rest of DoD is doing, as well as all the other Departments of the Federal Government.

TIME: Why should Americans think the situation in Iraq is getting better and not worse?

SCHOOMAKER: Gen. John Abizaid [head of the U.S. Central Command] and Gen. George Casey [the top commander in Iraq] believe that they're making progress. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are there engaged in it every day believe that they are making progress. That is different than saying that things are over. You're going to ask me, have we turned a corner? I don't know. You have to ask them, but I do believe we're moving in a positive direction.Any Commander (and the Chief of Staff Army is, following the Commander in Chief and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of the United States Army) who thought his army wasn't making progress, and didn't immediately change something, would have to be relieved of command. However, I would like to know what is the metric General Schoomaker and his commanders in the field are using to measure the progress he talks about.

TIME: Recruiting has been down the last few months. Do you worry about it, and also about keeping people in the Army?

SCHOOMAKER: Our retention is going very well. The 3rd Infantry Division is at more than 250% of [its retention] goal. And they're in Iraq. We're retaining 64,000 soldiers this year as opposed to 51,000 in previous years. The challenge is recruiting. We have raised our recruiting goal to 80,000. It was down around 71,000 previously. We aren't meeting our recruiting goals right now because our goals are much higher. I feel optimistic we will meet our enhanced goal by the end of the year in the regular Army. I am more concerned about the Guard and the Reserve.What the General fails to mention here is something called "Stop Lose". Soldiers deployed to Iraq, or who happen to have certain specific Military Occupational Specialties deemed by the Army to be in short supply and necessary to the war effort, as well as soldiers in National Guard or Army Reserve units that have been alerted for mobilization, do not have the option to leave when their term of service is over. For those deployed, they cannot leave the service until their tour in Iraq is over. For those in "Stop Loss" MOS' they cannot leave the service until that MOS is removed from the list, or they change MOS. For those in alerted reserve (National Guard / Reserve) units they cannot leave until they are mobilized, deployed, complete their tour, and come home. EXCEPTION: if the soldier is found to be medically disqualified for service.

General Schoomaker continued...

I went back and looked at World War II. We had a population of about 140 million people in this country and we put almost 9% of that population into uniform. Today we have twice the population and we're trying to put about four-tenths of one percent of it into uniform. And we're facing a national security situation that is at least as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than we faced in World War II. This nation is who I'm concerned about. It's not an Army problem to recruit. It's a national challenge.This should have been thought out by those who began this conflict before beginning it. If there isn't going to be a draft (which is how that high a percentage of the population was placed in service for WW II), then the only solution is to have the population fully support the war effort. That was NOT done prior to beginning this conflict. It could have been done, with a little patience and a little more diplomacy up front. It wasn't.

TIME: How do you get the nation behind recruiting?

SCHOOMAKER: I think we have to tell our story. We have to let people know that when the young men and women come into the armed forces, they will stay with us. They find out that they're in an organization that is bigger than they are, doing important things for the nation, and that they have responsibilities and opportunities they've never had before. What else would the top recruiter for the Army say? But here's the question. Do you want YOUR children in the military right now? I don't - and I'm a veteran of 29 years of military service to the United States.

TIME: Should we have a draft?

SCHOOMAKER: No. This nation can have a professional armed force. If we had a draft our Army would have to be much, much bigger and it would never be as good as it is now. Not because we don't have good people, but because it takes too long to train people as pentathletes. And with a two-year draft [commitment] you're never getting beyond a junior varsity level. First of all - he didn't answer the question, he posed another question and answered that. His real answer is "If there is to be a Draft, the commitment must be for more than 2 years."

Second - this is not up to the General, or any other General/Admiral/Service Member. This is up to the Congress of the United States. Given some of their recent decisions, that's frightening.

TIME: Rumsfeld has been tough on his generals, firing some, browbeating others to bend them to his will. How have you been able to stay on his good side?

SCHOOMAKER: I'm not sure I am on his good side. I mean, I don't see it as a good side or bad side. This is big-guy business. Look at who've I worked for my whole life. Guys like Charlie Beckwith [the hard-charging colonel who organized Delta Force]. I don't see this as a get-along deal. What we're doing is working towards common interests. These are big people, they're tough people. This is a tough business. And I don't think you can have too thin a skin.Anyone on Rumsfeld's "good side" isn't to be trusted. This is because Rumsfeld isn't to be trusted. He should be replaced yesterday.

TIME: What's the secret to gaining Rumsfeld's confidence?

SCHOOMAKER: I don't know. I think you have to produce. You have to stand up for what you think is right. You have to enter the dialogue. I did not know Secretary Rumsfeld well before he called me back. It was a big surprise. I had like four days notice. I was in my truck and his office called me. I entered it reluctantly. It wasn't something that I wanted to do. But the nation is at war. I asked him hard questions about whether he was willing to transform the Army the way I felt we had to do it and create the kind of force we needed. He said he was and so far he's held up his end of the bargain.Rumsfeld is Schoomaker's boss. How long do you keep your job if you bad-mouth the boss in an interview with TIME?

TIME: Some have grumbled that the generals and admirals are becoming too timid because Rumsfeld controls their promotions and he hasn't been shy about getting rid of folks he doesn't agree with. Is that true?

SCHOOMAKER: I can only speak for myself. I think we have an honest dialogue. We don't agree on everything. But he's the boss. I'm not the boss. The day that we can't agree on something that weighs deep inside of me—that's got to do with values, principles, right and wrong—I've got my truck with my keys out there. That's easy.Again - what can you say about your boss in a TIME interview?

TIME: When have you had to stand up to him?

SCHOOMAKER: Daily. But listen, his instincts are great. He's a tough guy who understands this stuff. And I believe his heart's in the right place. He wants to do the right thing and he needs people to engage him and have the tussle that needs to be done. If you read history, America's way of going to war is ugly. We're always late. It takes us forever to get things going. I am amazed at how fast we've been able to do the things that we've done in this war compared to World War II. America ought to be proud of this Army. Yes, America should be proud of the Army - and the Navy, and the Airforce, and the Marines, and the National Guard, and the Reserve, and the Coast Guard, and I hope I didn't leave any one out.

They are doing what they've been trained to do, asked to do, ordered to do. And they are doing it VERY well under a set of extremely difficult circumstances.

That's not in question. It's Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. and their abilities and decisions that many of us question.
Grave_n_idle
25-04-2005, 17:10
The day after the last election, I put forward the proposition (on NS) that there would be a draft within a year. The fact that the shortfall is being discussed again makes me think that my initial observation may not have been far off the mark.

Thus far, as one of the other posters mentioned, the shortfall seems to have been partially addressed by lowering the targets on what would be an acceptable soldier. I know, personally, of several individuals who had failed tests to get into the armed forces, who received cold-calls early this year asking if they were still interested in joining up if their 'failed' results were overlooked.
New Shiron
25-04-2005, 17:59
although men who turn age 18 are required to register for Selective Service, there is not a draft at this time, nor a law enabling one. The Selective Service Act of 1979 merely (well not merely, it was pretty fiercely debated at the time) required men to register for Selective Service so that in the event of the need for a Draft it could quickly be created.

Remember, this was during the Cold War and there was concern that the relatively small US Army (compared to the Soviets) wouldn't be large enough for a prolonged war and that conscription would be needed.

the law still exists but I doubt anything short of war with China would allow sufficient public support for a new Draft to get through Congress. Certainly the current level of public support isn't there for one.

So fear not, you don't have to run overseas to avoid the draft.

Besides, my son (a Marine) and most other members of the Armed Services I have talked to would prefer that the people alongside them be volunteers, not draftees forced to come. The professional military officer corps has the same opinion.
Santa Barbara
25-04-2005, 18:18
It's reassuring but nothing new. Of course military professionals want to keep the military, professional!

It's Congress and certain politicians who threaten to change that. A draft could easily serve some purpose - say there's another terrorist attack on US soil, the public is angry and even more insecure than they were after watching TV commercials and news. Then a draft could be "just the thing" according to some political lunkhead. Regardless of what, ya know, the military thinks.

That's the worry. But I think it's a small one as long as drafting soldiers is seen as not that effective compared to the professionals, and as long as people are generally opposed to being conscripted like commies.
Cabinia
25-04-2005, 18:40
SCHOOMAKER: Gen. John Abizaid [head of the U.S. Central Command] and Gen. George Casey [the top commander in Iraq] believe that they're making progress. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are there engaged in it every day believe that they are making progress. That is different than saying that things are over. You're going to ask me, have we turned a corner? I don't know. You have to ask them, but I do believe we're moving in a positive direction.

This answer is all political hot air. In a military scenario, if you can't be specific about your objectives and how you're meeting them, then you're not accomplishing anything.


SCHOOMAKER: I think we have to tell our story. We have to let people know that when the young men and women come into the armed forces, they will stay with us. They find out that they're in an organization that is bigger than they are, doing important things for the nation, and that they have responsibilities and opportunities they've never had before.

They need to stop sending our troops into foreign wars that have nothing to do with national security. Iraq is not now, and never has been, a threat to the people of the United States. Our participation in this war is morally unsupportable. Our service members commit everything to this country, pledging their lives and freedom to preserve ours. We have a duty to honor that commitment by not spending their lives and freedom lightly. Until we have new leadership that can honor its duty to the service members, I would not advise anyone to join. And I am a veteran myself.


SCHOOMAKER: No. This nation can have a professional armed force. If we had a draft our Army would have to be much, much bigger and it would never be as good as it is now. Not because we don't have good people, but because it takes too long to train people as pentathletes. And with a two-year draft [commitment] you're never getting beyond a junior varsity level.

Agreed. If the executive branch focused the military on missions that actually protect America, then there would be no need for expansion. We need to prepare for potential conflicts with North Korea and Iran, and can't be wasting our time with futile and unwanted nation-building exercises at the same time.